STATEN ISLAND, NY–An estimated 450,000 unsold copies of Time's special April 22 Earth Day issue were trucked Monday from the magazine's New Jersey distribution center to the Fresh Kills landfill in Staten Island.

The discarded copies of the issue–which features articles about conservation, biodiversity, and recycling, as well as guest editorials by President Clinton and Leonardo DiCaprio–are expected to decompose slowly over the next 175 years.


http://www.theonion.com/content/news/450_0...h_day_issues_of


Last week, The New York Times noted that the advertising industry is pulling back from green-themed marketing, having "grasped the public's growing skepticism over ads with environmental messages.
And advertisers' concerns are buttressed by the recent sales figures for magazines that have published a "Green Issue" this year.

Time's Earth Day issue was the newsweekly's third-lowest-selling issue of 2008 so far, according to ABC Rapid Report. A typical issue of Time sells 93,000 or so copies on the newsstand; the April 28 installment, which substituted green for red in the magazine's trademarked cover design, sold only 72,000. (As usual, The Onion nailed it.)

Elle's May issue sold a mere 275,000 copies, versus the title's year-to-date average of 328,500. The last issue of Elle to sell that badly was in May 2008 — another green issue, probably not coincidentally.



http://www.moonbattery.com/archives/2008/0..._fad_final.html

Did you know?

Earth Day Is Lenin's Birthday
Coincidence or Communism?
By: Alan Caruba

In 1955, then Soviet Premier, Nikita Krushchev ordered April 22nd be designated a day to celebrate Communism. In 1970, it was chosen to be Earth Day by Gaylord Nelson, one of the founders of the event. Those founders had 365 days from which to choose. They chose Lenin's birthday.

When Communism was imposed on Russia in 1917, the first thing it did was to outlaw the ownership of private property. Under Communism, the State owns all property and all natural resources. In recent years in the United States government already owns more than forty percent of the nation's landmass. Individual States own property as well, bringing the total closer to fifty percent.

Today, fully a third of all federal laws and regulations are devoted to the so-called "protection of the environment." They impact property ownership and the use of all energy sources. Vast areas of the U.S., despite known, huge reserves of oil and coal, have been put off limits.
LINK

Can I be the only one more than a little disturbed by the latest campaign to be fronted by energy company npower?

Launched today with large colour ads in the Sundays, it appeals directly to children, urging them to enlist as "climate cops", to root out "climate crimes", and thus "save the planet".

In a luridly-designed website, mimicking the style of "yoof" cartoons, it offers a bundle of downloads, including a pack of "climate crime cards", urging its recruits to spy on families, friends and relatives, inviting each of them to build up a "climate crime case file" in order to help them ensure their putative criminals do not "commit those crimes again (or else)!"

http://eureferendum.blogspot.com/2008/07/climate-nazis.html

http://www.cmu.edu/greenpractices/recycling/paper.html

http://www.recycle-more.co.uk/nav/page856.aspx

My grandkids are trying to believe all this stuff.
But last week I plopped some nice hot angus steaks in front of them and they gave up being vegans!
At least for the day.

One step at a time.

We turned a vegetarian one time. We'd have her over with her hubby (not a veg at all), and feed him wonderful food and we'd put together something nice and vegetarian for her. He'd just devour everything with gusto, barely speaking, save to "mmmm!" and praise us.

We knew we had her when she described how she, a vegetarian, liked her steak!

M

Recycling is rubbish: It eats more energy and creates more waste than burning our garbage in high-tech incinerators. The most efficient way of getting rid of garbage is burning it all together. Why? Because in raw garbage, plastics turn into their own fuel so you don’t need to add anything else. Aluminum and steel should be recycled, though, as we need less energy for that than to produce them from scratch.

http://search.japantimes.co.jp/cgi-bin/fl20080722jk.html


Professor Kunihiko Takeda, Ph.D., is vice-chancellor of the Institute of Science and Technology Research at Chubu University and one of the world's leading authorities on both uranium enrichment and recycling. The 65-year-old is also a bestselling author of books with titles such as “We Should Not Recycle!” “Recycled Illusions” and “Why Are Lies Accepted on Environmental Issues?”
His fresh and original views are clear in his most recent book, “Hypocritical Ecology,” which has been flying off shelves at the speed of 100,000 a month since being published this June..

Green bubble popping

If you search for global warming at Google News, you will obtain 16,500 articles from the last 30 days. That's an amazing drop from the peak that occurred a year ago or so (or two years?) when the corresponding number was well above 50,000.

http://motls.blogspot.com/2009/06/green-bubble-popping.html

The green bubble has burst

The point of "utopian environmentalism" was to reduce guilt. During the green bubble, many Americans became "captivated by the twin thoughts that human civilization could soon come crashing down - and that we are on the cusp of a sudden leap forward in consciousness, one that will allow us to heal ourselves, our society, and our planet. Apocalyptic fears meld seamlessly into utopian hopes."

Suddenly, commonplace acts - e.g., buying light bulbs - infused pedestrian lives with cosmic importance. But: "Greens often note that the changing global climate will have the greatest impact on the world's poor; they neglect to mention that the poor also have the most to gain from development fueled by cheap fossil fuels like coal. For the poor, the climate is already dangerous."

Now, say Nordhaus and Shellenberger, "the green bubble" has burst, pricked by Americans' intensified reluctance to pursue greenness at a cost to economic growth. The dark side of utopianism is "escapism and a disengagement from reality that marks all bubbles, green or financial."


http://www.themorningsun.com/articles/2009...00005495454.txt

"Green" is no longer trendy

President Obama has ditched his hybrid Ford Escape SUV.

Obama rarely drove the hybrid Escape after 2007, using it mainly as a political prop.

Today, our green president tools around in a giant gas-guzzling, armor-plated Caddy limo — dubbed “The Beast” by the Secret Service — that gets an estimated 10 mpg. Like many Americans, he’s found green takes a back seat to practical.



http://www.nationalreview.com/planet-gore/...suv-henry-payne

Why being Green means never having to say you're sorry

watching Channel 4’s 'What The Green Movement Got Wrong'

The documentary was a celebration of the fact that two notable green campaigners – Mark Lynas and Stewart Brand (creator of the Whole Earth Catalog) had finally come round to appreciating that some of the key tenets of their Green religion were flawed and had in fact done more harm than good.

GM crops such as “golden rice” and vitamin-enhanced millet, they cheerily conceded, were not evil “Frankenfoods” after all but a vital way of averting malnutrition in the Third World.

Nuclear power, they agreed, was way more efficient at producing clean energy than the coal alternative. Furthermore, the fuss about Chernobyl had been horribly overdone.

The near global ban on DDT – inspired by Rachel Carson’s junk science bestseller Silent Spring – had caused millions to die of malaria.

Green campaigners like Brand and Lynas have not only caused massive damage to the global economy – the biotech and nuclear industry, especially – but they have also almost certainly contributed to numerous deaths in the Third World. And we’re – what? – supposed to cosy up to them now and go: “Well done, lads! You’ve seen the light!

What sticks in my craw still further is that neither Brand nor Lynas actually HAS seen the light. As the programme went on to demonstrate, both men remain wedded to the equally wrong-headed theory of Man Made Climate Change.

Had these Greenies been capable of a scrap of insight or self-analysis, they would have understood that the current (now fading) hysteria about AGW comes from exactly the same school of junk science and muddled thinking that gave us Atomkraft Nein Danke and know-nothing idiots in masks and white jumpsuits (Lynas among them) destroying fields of GM crops.


http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdel...ay-youre-sorry/

Environmentalism -- Rejecting the Keystone pipeline

The person who built his mountain cabin last year is an environmentalist. The person who wants to build one this year is a developer.

In turning down Keystone, however, the President has uncovered an ugly little secret that has always lurked beneath the surface of environmentalism. Its basic appeal is to the affluent. Despite all the professions of being "liberal" and "against big business," environmentalism's main appeal is that it promises to slow the progress of industrial progress. People who are already comfortable with the present state of affairs -- who are established in the environment, so to speak -- are happy to go along with this.

Why is it that people who are the greatest beneficiaries of industrial society are often the most passionate in condemning it? People in the leisure class have become so accustomed to affluence as the natural state of things that they no longer feel compelled to embrace any further industrial progress

It is only the truly affluent, however, who can be concerned about the environment to the exclusion of everything else. Most people see the benefits of pipelines and power plants and admit they have to be built somewhere. Only in the highest echelons do we hear people say, "We don't need to build any pipelines. We've already got enough energy. We can all sit around awaiting the day we live off wind and sunshine."


link